During the portion of the interview (near the end) when Mr. Zelikow is asked directly by Ms. Goodman, "So you're saying you did not tell her [ to stop keeping a log of your phone calls]?" He first seems to answer, "Yes...well" and then quickly launches into another spiel. This "Yes" could later be pointed to as an answer in the affirmative if others refute the spin he next gives as his version of these events. His spins then ignores the "yes" he has already given as an answer and provides a relatively long explanation (not supporting either a yes or no answer) about how this question is probably based on a garbled story someone collected third hand. One curious behavior observed during nearly all of his statement is that he is clearly shaking his head, "no." Experts in lying have suggested that shaking of the head during interrogation can be a body-movement-tell-tale that indicates the subject is actually contradicting what he or she is saying. That is, saying "yes" and at the same time shaking your head "no" is an indication that "no" is the real answer. In this case, shaking your head "no," while suggesting that this is just a garbled mistake made by someone else, could be his body's unconscious response denying the denial. Whether or not that is true, the incredibly practiced way he provides both "yes" and "no" answers to the question certainly add to my concerns that this man likely has a capability for blowing smoke that is phenomenal.
Is such a liar. "2 of the 3 people that took my calls..." "The Commission had no phone logs." Contradict yourself much Zelikow? He's playing semantics. There were no official "9/11 Commission phone logs," but he had 3 people taking his messages. Phil Shenon says he has copies of the messages.
Zelikow should have been charged with perjury and rigging a federal investigation, both serious crimes. In the case of the 9/11 "Commission" the fox was investigating the henhouse, the Mafia was investigating the Genovese Family.....
If it was "al Qaeda militants under orders of the 'guy in the cave' who were *solely* responsible for 9/11, as is claimed by the US Government and its corporate media propaganda-machine in tow, then some examples of the questions we should all be firing at Zelikow the traitor include the following:
* why did VP Cheney make a request to Senator Tom Daschle "not to investigate 9/11?
* why the obfuscations and the 441 day delay in getting the Commission started,
* why was the Commission paced under severe time constraints?
* why was the Commission badly underfunded?
* why did the Bush White House demand that Commission's scope and its access were to be heavily restricted
* why did Bush and Cheney refuse to testify to the Commission under oath, and secretly, with no transcripts or reporting?
* why the constantly changing accounts by NORAD?
* why was 90% of the material presented to the Commission omitted in its final report?
* why the appointment of a Bush Administration insider (Zelikow) as the exec. director of an investigation publicly billed as "independent"?
* why the destruction of evidence and wholesale tampering with crime scenes without prosecution of such?
* why the initial appointment of Henry Kissinger of all people (who stepped down rather than reveal his client list)?
* why did CIA chief Tenet lie to the Commission in closed hearings?
* why were numerous 9/11 witnesses intimidated and harassed by government "minders"?
* why did so many of the senior Commissioners make statements trashing the findings of their own inquiry, including the two co-chairs?
* why did Zelikow bury the option of a criminal referral by the commission to the Justice Department for a perjury investigation?
* why did the 9/11 Commission wrongly describe the internal structure of the Twin Towers,
* why was there not even a mention of the demise of WTC7?
Obviously, there are many more; I'm done typing (!).
If 9/11 had been the simple matter of "an attack on the United States by foreign terrorists" as claimed, then in the real and rational world, the subsequent reactions of the government in so many areas of its "investigation", would have been the complete opposite of what we have observed since the event. Likely guilt can be assumed just by observing who did what, and didn't do what, in reaction: In other words, who is being protected?
Why were all the records given to NARA in paper form? It was 2002 for crying out loud! Were there even any IBM Selectrics still left in Washington, DC?
Most, if not all, records should have been in electronic format.
So much for cooperating with the upgrades to the FOIA.
More on 9/11
Check out and leave comment because the article does not exactly have the right description of how the Towers came down. Also interesting article.
http://memoryholeblog.com/2013/05/18/secret-government-deep-events-and-the-emerging-police-state/#more-4401
Denying the Denial?
During the portion of the interview (near the end) when Mr. Zelikow is asked directly by Ms. Goodman, "So you're saying you did not tell her [ to stop keeping a log of your phone calls]?" He first seems to answer, "Yes...well" and then quickly launches into another spiel. This "Yes" could later be pointed to as an answer in the affirmative if others refute the spin he next gives as his version of these events. His spins then ignores the "yes" he has already given as an answer and provides a relatively long explanation (not supporting either a yes or no answer) about how this question is probably based on a garbled story someone collected third hand. One curious behavior observed during nearly all of his statement is that he is clearly shaking his head, "no." Experts in lying have suggested that shaking of the head during interrogation can be a body-movement-tell-tale that indicates the subject is actually contradicting what he or she is saying. That is, saying "yes" and at the same time shaking your head "no" is an indication that "no" is the real answer. In this case, shaking your head "no," while suggesting that this is just a garbled mistake made by someone else, could be his body's unconscious response denying the denial. Whether or not that is true, the incredibly practiced way he provides both "yes" and "no" answers to the question certainly add to my concerns that this man likely has a capability for blowing smoke that is phenomenal.
Zelikow...
Is such a liar. "2 of the 3 people that took my calls..." "The Commission had no phone logs." Contradict yourself much Zelikow? He's playing semantics. There were no official "9/11 Commission phone logs," but he had 3 people taking his messages. Phil Shenon says he has copies of the messages.
The Genovese Family investigating crime by the Mafia.....
Zelikow should have been charged with perjury and rigging a federal investigation, both serious crimes. In the case of the 9/11 "Commission" the fox was investigating the henhouse, the Mafia was investigating the Genovese Family.....
If it was "al Qaeda militants under orders of the 'guy in the cave' who were *solely* responsible for 9/11, as is claimed by the US Government and its corporate media propaganda-machine in tow, then some examples of the questions we should all be firing at Zelikow the traitor include the following:
* why did VP Cheney make a request to Senator Tom Daschle "not to investigate 9/11?
* why the obfuscations and the 441 day delay in getting the Commission started,
* why was the Commission paced under severe time constraints?
* why was the Commission badly underfunded?
* why did the Bush White House demand that Commission's scope and its access were to be heavily restricted
* why did Bush and Cheney refuse to testify to the Commission under oath, and secretly, with no transcripts or reporting?
* why the constantly changing accounts by NORAD?
* why was 90% of the material presented to the Commission omitted in its final report?
* why the appointment of a Bush Administration insider (Zelikow) as the exec. director of an investigation publicly billed as "independent"?
* why the destruction of evidence and wholesale tampering with crime scenes without prosecution of such?
* why the initial appointment of Henry Kissinger of all people (who stepped down rather than reveal his client list)?
* why did CIA chief Tenet lie to the Commission in closed hearings?
* why were numerous 9/11 witnesses intimidated and harassed by government "minders"?
* why did so many of the senior Commissioners make statements trashing the findings of their own inquiry, including the two co-chairs?
* why did Zelikow bury the option of a criminal referral by the commission to the Justice Department for a perjury investigation?
* why did the 9/11 Commission wrongly describe the internal structure of the Twin Towers,
* why was there not even a mention of the demise of WTC7?
Obviously, there are many more; I'm done typing (!).
If 9/11 had been the simple matter of "an attack on the United States by foreign terrorists" as claimed, then in the real and rational world, the subsequent reactions of the government in so many areas of its "investigation", would have been the complete opposite of what we have observed since the event. Likely guilt can be assumed just by observing who did what, and didn't do what, in reaction: In other words, who is being protected?
9/11 Records
Another question:
Why were all the records given to NARA in paper form? It was 2002 for crying out loud! Were there even any IBM Selectrics still left in Washington, DC?
Most, if not all, records should have been in electronic format.
So much for cooperating with the upgrades to the FOIA.